ABSTRACT
The belief that Gypsies form one of the world's many ethnic groups is now the most commonly adopted approach in scholarly and other writings on the group. However, this does not mean that all those promoting an ethnic definition agree in the components of that identity or even the nature of the boundaries which mark the group from others. The ethnic Gypsies encountered in the work of, for example, Judith Okely are of a different kind to those written about by Thomas Acton even though both share a belief in the validity of the ethnic classification. 1 Also, the broad, though far from unanimous and variously interpreted, consensus among Gypsy scholars can give a misleading impression concerning the degree to which the ethnic definition of Gypsies is acknowledged in the wider scholarly community and by the general public. In the many works on ethnicity and ethnic identity, written primarily by anthropologists and sociologists, the examples and case studies range from Aborigines and Jews to the many and various tribes of Africa, with Gypsies only noticeable because of their absence. This academic exclusion is symptomatic of a broader disregard of the value or legitimacy of an ethnic identity for Gypsies. Such scholarly neglect is mirrored by a continuing popular perception of the group which significantly and pointedly excludes Gypsies from the ranks of the world's ethnic populations and so allows the spectre of the unrespectable Gypsy to dominate.
